On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 16:41 +0000, auspex wrote: > I'm not asking for an "alternative" to be applied to a specific > application, I'm suggesting that Eclipse should take advantage of that > system-wide setting. That's quite a difference. In any case, /etc/jvm > is ALSO system-wide, so where's the difference? The /etc/jvm file > suggests that every VM should register itself there - but that doesn't > solve the priority issue. alternatives does.
Using /usr as an entry in /etc/jvm, which is present by default, results in it using the alternatives system. ~/.jvm and ~/.jvm.d are also available for per-user/per-application settings. > If you already have JAVA_HOME set, eclipse is going to use that anyway. Yes, but Debian packages cannot rely on environmental variables being set. It's in policy. Also, in my opinion, it's obnoxious. > > I don't understand this reluctance to use a tool specifically designed > to solve this sort of problem. For those of us (no doubt the vast > majority) using Eclipse on a single-user system, we don't want to be > having to set the same values in multiple locations. For those few who > have Eclipse installed onto multi-user systems, they are still in a > position to recommend a specific VM via alternatives, and individual > users can override JAVA_HOME as required. Uh huh. That's probably why the bug was marked as a duplicate of Eclipse using it's own system. I wrote the Eclipse system because of a real need (at the time, anyway) to configure Eclipse and Eclipse alone to use a different VM than the system VM. Because it did not work with gcj, but I didn't want to use Sun's VM for a bunch of other crap on the system that works fine with gcj. Then sometime later I realized that this system worked pretty well, and could be applied to any Java app, so I wrote the java-common version. Yes, Eclipse should use the java-common version. No, I haven't had time to fix it. Yes, you can submit patches to fix it, or somebody else can. As for using alternatives, if alternatives can work per-user and per-application, it sounds like a wonderful idea. But it can't. Does this clear up any confusion about why alternatives is not appropriate? I am certainly open to any arguments claiming that nobody wants to use different JVM's for different applications anymore, and that nobody wants per-user settings of this type. If you can rephrase your bug as a specific argument against that, then fine. -- Eclipse uses /etc/eclipse/java_home instead of java-common scripts https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/45347 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
